I'm wondering if any changes should be to remove rule 1, since determining relevance could be considered subjective, and within the realm of what should be voted on by the users. The users that now have the ccp to downvote much of the spammy stuff.
I think the "that is not common knowledge of rule 2 could be removed. Sorry, every factual claim needs a source.
How difficult is it to do something like this:
First post of user X
The holocaust didn't happen. This link shows internal inconsistency and is backed up by this more in-depth link showing massive external inconsistency. The second link shows fully two thirds of the claim false, and an entire supposed "death camp" to have its nature completely fabricated, which should be enough for anyone to conclude that the rest is probably also a lie.
Second post of user X
Looking further, it seems that Jews lie a lot. This(link to first post) post shows that two thirds of the Holocaust was a lie, and here is where they lied about another 900,000 of the claimed amount.
First post of user Y
It looks like Jews have some kind of anti-white agenda. This link shows them pretending to be white, and saying disparaging things about whites in the same tweet, then admitting they're actually Jewish. I was under the impression that Jews were white like us, but maybe they don't think that way?
First post of user Z
HOLY SHIT, BREAKING NEWS - check out this link where all kinds of shady shit done by Jews is brought to light! With the Holocaust(link to second post of user X) being almost completely debunked as a hoax, and the anti-white agenda being shown here(link to First post of user Y), this really looks like a pattern!
How fucking difficult is that?
And then if something in that nest of links is WRONG, then someone could very easily call it out. The original user could edit it, or someone could make a new source link that everyone uses for that line of investigation.
Am I just some kind of oddball that thinks doing the above should be standard operating procedure? Hell, I'm pretty sure that was more or less what was supposed to happen from the beginning, but maybe I was mistaken.
Anywho, as usual, it's up to the users, but the above seemed worth banging out on the keyboard for all to see.
@kevdude @heygeorge @Vindicator @Disappointed
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
Wouldn't it be great if people made most submissions this way? There would be so much more meat!
We have a few folks who do. But the reality is, most people are posting from their phones, on the fly, to participate in the community and something small against the pedocracy. They want to participate, but they don't want to take on a research leadership role.
I wonder what would happen if instead of trying to get there by removing everything that doesn't meet that standard, we do something to reward the posts that do? Maybe give them a blue ribbon flair or something and sticky them for a few days. Positive reinforcement instead of negative? Just brainstorming.
Crensch ago
I love that idea, actually.
And yeah, I'm pretty far removed from the situation, so while I might have a fresh eye for bullshit being pulled, I don't necessarily have my finger on the pulse.
Fuck, that's a good idea man.
Have a master list submission of all the blue-ribbon posts, too. When one gets flaired/stickied, it goes in that submission.
Is there really nobody that wants to gather all the disparate pieces of info and put them together in a multi-level grouping of comments linking to each other?